I'm a crime-fighter, says FamilyTreeDNA after caught giving DNA data to FBI - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/01/familytreedna_fbi_link/ <comment><USER2> Dude selling access to the database? What type of contract is this with FBI? Does everyone's DNA get shared, or specific people? Why would anyone trust these DNA companies FOR law enforcement?

<comment><USER3> I would never use one of those sites. They can collect as much info as they would like, then sell the company with the info and there is nothing you can do.

From their website:

FamilyTreeDNA users or others you may choose to share with: The information you add to your FamilyTreeDNA profile will be seen by other FamilyTreeDNA users (depending on your settings), as well as your DNA matches (when you choose to participate in DNA matching), and public family tree details (tree sharing settings default to share with your matches). If you choose to participate in matching, some of your Genetic Information may be shared with your matches and your mutual matches. You may review this information in the Learning Center and make adjustments in your Privacy & Sharing settings. In addition to the Personal Information mentioned in this section, Group Project Administrators of Group Projects you have chosen to join or Group Projects your matches have chosen to join, will be able to view certain DNA results (e.g., Y-DNA and mtDNA markers). Pseudonymized DNA marker information can also be shared publicly via any Group Project you chose to join. To change your settings, please go to the links below in Section 7.A.

To share details of your family history or DNA information outside the Services, means to do so at your own risk.

Information shared with commonly owned entities: Some or all of your information may be shared with other companies under common ownership or control of FamilyTreeDNA, which may include our corporate parent, our subsidiaries, or any other subsidiaries owned by our corporate parent to provide you better service and improve user experience.

Service Providers: We use the services of other companies to help us provide the Services to you. As a result, these partner companies will have some of your information in their systems. Our partners act only at the direction of FamilyTreeDNA and are subject to contractual obligations governing data security and confidentiality consistent with this Privacy Statement and applicable laws. These partners include our DNA test shipping providers, credit card processors, cloud services infrastructure providers, and vendors that assist us in marketing, analytics, fraud prevention, and Member Support.

For Legal or Regulatory Process: We may share your Personal Information if we believe it is reasonably necessary to:

Enforce or apply the FamilyTreeDNA Terms and Conditions;

Comply with a valid legal process (e.g., subpoenas, warrants);

Protect the security or integrity of the Services; or

Protect the rights, safety, or property, of FamilyTreeDNA, our employees or users.

If compelled to disclose your Personal Information to law enforcement, we will do our best, unless prohibited by law, to provide you with notice.

If FamilyTreeDNA is acquired: If FamilyTreeDNA or its businesses are acquired or transferred to another entity (in part or in whole and including in connection with any bankruptcy or similar proceedings), we will share your Personal Information with that entity. The promises in this Privacy Statement will apply to your Personal Information as transferred to the new entity.

<comment><USER4> Classic weasel words:

> Some or all of your information may be shared with other companies ... to > provide you better service and improve user experience.

Its easy to argue that if FamilyTreeDNA was to make wayyy more money by exploiting your data, then that might allow them to jazz up their web site and nominally "provide you better service and improve user experience".

<comment><USER5> Like "this call might be recorded or monitored for quality assurance purposes" yet if you tell them that you're recording the conversation they will hang immediately.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


NASA in Your Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/index2.htm

<comment><USER2> "Install the most recent Flash Plugin to view this site."

I'm getting tired of this.</comment>


House G.O.P. Tax Writers Take Aim at College Tuition Benefits - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/house-tax-bill-higher-education-increases-tuition.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news <comment><USER2> Was a little disappointed with the NY Times for this article.

GOP tax plan is shockingly not that bad. They are going to increase the standard deduction, which definitely helps anybody who just graduated and is working to pay off loans. Obviously they should keep the other benefits for grad students, but it's not crazy to see why this came up. The 401k thing was similar, I was horrified by it until I realized it just turned my 401k into a giant Roth IRA, which is awesome.

Wish they would not sacrifice revenue anywhere, but we can always raise that tax plan later it's a great base to start with.

FWIW, the congressman Lamar Smith who has been a republican for 30 years and is retiring and thus doesn't care, even he is working to make sure the benefits stay for grad students.

<comment><USER3> I don't like the overall goals of the bill, but both the 401k change and the tuition reimbursement tax are even more objectionable, simply for being dishonest.

The 401k tax has precisely nothing to do with building a better tax code. It's about capturing taxes on retirement savings now rather than later to make the bill look like it comes closer to paying for itself.

Similar to the tuition benefit tax. It's a pure accounting trick. Sure, on paper there's a ton of new revenue you're now going to get, but no one is actually going to pay it. Grad students are broke! There's not some untapped source of revenue there.</comment></comment>


Paul Baran's entire catalogue of RAND publications available for free download - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/J7oL5ZwuTzY <comment><AUTHOR> This occurred after I'd inquired about the possibility.

Cutting to the chase, the URL and title list:

[https://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/b/baran_paul.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/b/baran_paul.html)

LSI: The Basic Module for New Communication Networks 1968

Binary Coded Gun Barrels to Discourage Illegal Use of Small Arms 1968

On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy 1968

A Closed Circuit TV System for the Visually Handicapped 1968

Communication Policy Issues for the Coming Computer Utility. 1968

On the Future Computer Era: Modification of the American Character and the Role of the Engineer, or, A Little Caution in the Haste to Number 1968

Some Changes in Information Technology Affecting Marketing in the Year 2000 1968

The Coming Computer Utility -- Laissez-Faire, Licensing, or Regulation? 1967

Some Caveats on the Contribution of Technology to Law Enforcement 1967

Remarks on the Question of Privacy Raised by the Automation of Mental Health Records 1967

Some Remarks on Digital Distributed Communications Networks 1967

Urban Node in the Information Network 1967

A Briefing on the Distributed Adaptive Message-Block Network 1965

On Distributed Communications: V. History, Alternative Approaches, and Comparisons 1964

On Distributed Communications: I. Introduction to Distributed Communications Networks 1964

On Distributed Communications: IV. Priority, Precedence, and Overload 1964

On Distributed Communications: II. Digital Simulation of Hot-Potato Routing in a Broadband Distributed Communications Network 1964

On Distributed Communications: X. Cost Estimate 1964

On Distributed Communications: VII. Tentative Engineering Specifications and Preliminary Design for a High-Data-Rate Distributed Network Switching Node 1964

On Distributed Communications: VIII. The Multiplexing Station 1964

On Distributed Communications: VI. Mini-Cost Microwave 1964

On Distributed Communications: Summary Overview 1964

On Distributed Communications:: IX. Security, Secrecy, and Tamper-Free Considerations 1964

On Distributed Communications Networks 1962

Coverage Estimates of FM, TV and Power Facilities Useful in a Broadband Distributed Network 1962

A Digital Simulation of an Aided Adaptive Character Reading Machine 1960

An Aided Adaptive Character Reader for Machine Translation of Languages 1960

On a Distributed Command and Control System Configuration 1960

Reliable Digital Communications Systems Using Unreliable Network Repeater Nodes 1960</comment>


Blackbox Reversing an Electric Skateboard Wireless Protocol - <AUTHOR> https://blog.lacklustre.net/posts/Blackbox_Reversing_an_Electric_Skateboard_Wireless_Protocol/

<comment><USER2> > We theorized that the skateboard and remote used the 2.4 GHz band, which is > well supported by HackRF One. Ordinarily one would use GNU Radio and a basic > waterfall sink to look at spectrum, but GNU Radio can be a bit cumbersome.

> Luckily we had a PortaPack to play with! The PortaPack sits on top of the > HackRF and acts as a wideband spectrum analyzer (among other things). We > tuned up to 2400 MHz and swept the spectrum in 20 MHz increments looking for > our signal.

Why not look the frequency up in the device's entry in the FCC's online Equipment Authorization database instead of guessing?

(I'm guessing they just wanted to play with that PortaPack...)</comment>


The Vicious Circle of Documentation - <AUTHOR> http://www.hezmatt.org/~mpalmer/blog/2015/02/15/the-documentation-vicious-circle.html

<comment><USER2> Answering questions _with links to the specific documentation in question_ is a useful technique. It reinforces that there _is_ documentation, and helps vet the quality of it. It often means that the doc creator is also its reference librarian, but that's not all bad.

otoburb's suggestion to have a comprehensive internal search capacity is an excellent one.

Another element I strongly endorse: creating documentation on a system which allows for creating ePub or other eBook formats. The number of times I've been stuck in a color or server closet trying to scan docs either on a console or laptop session, or worse, a smartphone -- except that the network's down -- is too damned high.

An eBook reader and recently-updated set of pubs is a lifesaver.

</comment><comment><USER3> >Do you have any other ideas for how to encourage readers to read, and for authors to write?

Ensure that your internal system has a consistent and accurate search engine that can index across multiple different file types. The article implies that documentation is written in a single, monolithic format (e.g. PDF, text, Word, blog posts, internal social media posts, etc.), but relevant content is often fragmented not only across mediums but in their refinement from rough notes (sometimes mere meeting minute mentions) to externally-consumable form.

Encouragement for authors to write was addressed in the blog pots, although I've found that taking the time to praise specific groups and authors for their documentation is typically quite effective.</comment>


Show HN: Random Hipster SVG Graphics - <AUTHOR> https://www.williamsharkey.com/Shapes.html <comment><AUTHOR> The motivation behind this demo:

\- looking at svgs on other people's website and noticed the code is often lengthy

Goals:

\- to generate random svgs which are short in code size

\- be able to quickly browse random svgs to find appealing ones.

One area I could improve is allowing custom templates. Right now, I have hardcoded a template to generate compositions of triangles on points of a hexagon.

If you have any questions or suggestions, let me know. Thanks.</comment>


1987 Time Capsule Predictions by Sci-Fi Writers About 2012  - <AUTHOR> http://www.writersofthefuture.com/time-capsule-predictions <comment><USER2> By far the most accurate:

DAVE WOLVERTON

In 2012 We will see:

1) That economic cycles caused by rises in technological levels will begin to level out—countries that have a falsely inflated economy will be forced to export their technologies to third-world countries where people are willing to work for less money. This will lead to a situation where knowledge, the key to our technologic success, will be spread across the world. We'll see rapid decreases in starvation levels, but will still be plagued with political turmoil.

2) Men's Rights—We will see a reaction to the women's movement. Men will demand to be portrayed by the media as the sensitive, caring creatures that they are. They will also demand equal rights in custody battles where children are seldom awarded to a father because our society chooses to believe a mother is a better care-taker by nature.

3) Introduction of x-ray microscopes in the early 2000's will lead to rapid progress in gene splicing. Look for rapid growth in medicine and mining, and food production. We may also see bacteria being engineered to simulate parts of the immune system (which could cure immune disorders such as AIDS and allergies).

<comment><USER3> The second point is technically accurate – but does it really count if it's a delusional movement by a few crazies that is in no way comparable to to the women's movement and mostly based on a completely weird worldview (all the while many of the legitimate goals of the women's movement are far from reached)?

<comment><USER4> Feminists were also branded as delusional mentally ill people when they started fighting for their rights. Your comment shows exactly why these movements need to exist and the prejudices they have to overcome. Are men fighting for basic access to their children in a biased legal system "crazies"? What about those trying to tackle the massive problem of young men committing suicide? What about those campaigning to give boys the same protection from genital mutilation as girls? Every movement has radicals and unfortunately they tend to be the loudest. Consider the running controversy over anti-transgender feminist groups (eg. [1]). They're loud, get lots of attention but hardly represent the majority.

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical- feminism-trans-radfem2012)

<comment><USER3> All MRAs I've ever heard were downright weird in their worldview. There are some problems worth fighting for (nothing comparable with what women faced and still face), sure, but that doesn't seem to be their focus. Their focus seems to be demonizing feminists and derailing. (Let's quickly talk about custody: feminists and MRAs could actually be marching in exactly the same direction: The root cause of the problem are strict gender roles, women are for taking care of children, men are for working. But no, feminists are to blame. MRAs also love using warped statistics, but that is very much besides the point. There is no reasonableness in that movement.)

The text implies that some sort of MR movement would spring up as a widespread reaction to feminism (and it doesn't have any comparable issues to fight for, it doesn't have the numbers, it doesn't have the intellectual depth nor the academic backbone). It did spring up as a tiny reaction to feminism. Wikipedia tells me that the movement has its roots in the 1970s, so it's not like this would have been something completely new in 1987. It's hard to say, but I see no reason to believe that the MR movement is that much bigger than it was in 1987. And it still defines itself as a reaction to feminism. Which makes about zero sense. All the issues they are fighting for were not caused by feminism. Far from it. Many feminists will be perfectly capable of recognizing them as valid problems. (But, again, that's very much besides the point.)

<comment><USER5> Feminism has a long and storied history, to which its "intellectual depth" and "academic backbone" has, and continues to be, largely irrelevant. It is not monolithic, and represents a diversity of views unified only by the idea that women should stand up for themselves. The modern custody situation, which admittedly has become more nuanced since the 1980s, is at least partly a result of strains of feminism that embraced motherhood.

While I can agree that, at present, many of the "MRA" seem like "weirdos" tilting at windmills, there is nothing inherently wrong with having strong advocates on both sides of a discussion.

<comment><USER3> It's not two sides, though. That makes no sense. The issues MRAs are campaigning for are not issues feminists are campaigning against.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Fears of War, Population Explosion, American Decline, and Japanese Ascension with some anti-Reagan sentiment mixed in. Pretty much a lesson in what pop- culture fear look like in 1987, and every one of them turned out to be a non- issue.

This ought to give one pause and great skepticism when evaluating today's pop- culture fears. Of course, just because an idiot picks (c) on an SAT question doesn't mean it's wrong.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but whose to say that the prevalence of those fears didn't have a hand in making them a non-issue?

What else but a fear of war motivates us to avoid it? Would China have instituted its one-child policy without a fear of population explosion, a policy which arguably is one of the most important factors in its rapid rise (as compared to India, for instance)? Perhaps the seeming inevitability of Japan's dominance made them complacent while simultaneously stripping American's of theirs?

<comment><USER8> Instead of investing in building family Chinese invest in building career + retirement fund?

<comment><USER9> Now the only thing they need is to institute western-like welfare state system where people have very low private savings rate and rely almost completely on pay-as-you-go defined benefits global pension funds - and they'd be left very surprised and wondering what hit them so hard when everything was going so good just so short time ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The lesson here is "don't ask sci-fi writers to predict the future."

Seriously, these guys are doing what we all do: making some kind of linear estimate based on past data. Usually these estimates end in some sort of crisis. No, we are not out of oil. It's debatable whether we've even reached peak oil, which I doubt. The U.S. has a shot at becoming a major oil _exporter_ if we don't screw it up. No, hunger and disease are no more widespread and rampant than they were then. If anything, things have probably gotten a little better. No, we are not colonizing the moon or Mars. Our space program is still barely getting started. No, everybody isn't an illiterate slob watching CGI dramas, but that day still seems to be fast approaching, at least for the western world.

The internet really took the species on a hard turn from where we all thought we were going. Even idea of a hive mind where billions vegetate using computer stimulus wasn't considered. Everybody thought that the individual would stay the same and technology would evolve around them. What's happened is much more interesting: the idea of the unique individual is changing as more of the things that make us unique are being recorded and shared. Technology is not transforming the world; technology is transforming _us_.

ADD: An interesting title to this article might be "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine."

<comment><USER11> Well, I had the opposite conclusion. Lots of the linear estimates were more or less right, and the ones that were wildly wrong were _not linear enough_.

Like, here's a wildly wrong one: "Probate and copyright law will be entirely restructured by 2012 because people will be frozen at death, and there will be electronic means of consulting them. Many attorneys will specialize in advocacy for the dead." What is this guy anticipating? He's anticipating that biocomputing will explode up from approximately 0 to the level where we blur the line between life and death.

What about "now in 1987, we would beg you to forgive us. We have burdened you with impossible debts, wasted and polluted the planet that should have been your rich heritage, left you instead a dreadful legacy of ignorance, want, and war"? The author has totally neglected the idea that perhaps future presidents would create debts, pollution, ignorance, and war at scales which just blow those original scales out of the water, so as to seem irrelevant by comparison. Instead he predicts a total reversal of human nature, expressed in a "faith that you have saved yourselves".

If they've shown sci-fi bias towards computers, that has actually to some extent held up; if they've shown sci-fi bias towards space, that has not. The slow-and-incremental predictions are not so bad.

<comment><USER12> The intriuging thing about the JACK WILLIAMSON quote is that his apology from 1987 sounds like something one might write today for an audience in 2047. He didn't predict the future; he (quite accidentally) predicted that which continues to plague the contemporary psyche.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My elementary school included a class that put a time capsule together during the 1968-1969 school year, with pupil predictions of the year 2001. In the year 2001, the time capsule was opened up. We were quite concerned about air pollution and, wouldn't you know, running out of petroleum, and both turned out to be less of a problem than we anticipated. I expected more progress in the United States in "race" relations than there actually has been, but it is a fact that the United States is experiencing an ongoing reduction of "race" consciousness that is hard to imagine to people who remember the days of legal segregation by state law.

<http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14635780-post3.html>

I was interested to see that another page on the site hosting the submitted article has a description of the late L. Ron Hubbard

<http://www.writersofthefuture.com/lrhbio>

that perhaps needs some fact-checking.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard>

<http://www.villagevoice.com/related/to/L.+Ron+Hubbard/>

[http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/07/25/bay-area- great-g...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/07/25/bay-area-great- grandson-of-l-ron-hubbard-blasts-scientology/)

<comment><USER14> The site looks like 100% Scientóogy propaganda. I know this may sound paranoic, but you can really recognize it by the home page and the way it's written.

<comment><USER15> I know, right? Reminds me of this: <http://www.thrivemovement.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 2037

Some promising technologies will still be struggling along in 2037. Others have disappeared or been replaced completely. No matter how miraculous and marvelous the advances that have happened though, society will have managed to consider them mundane and probably inevitable. I don't know what quantum computers and machine learning will have allowed by 2037- (better weather prediction? deep mathematical truths?), but I suspect that the things people think about the most, like how to have meaningful relationships and fulfilling work, will have only been minimally affected. On the other hand, I predict that some people thinking about those things now will have found, individually, exactly what they were looking for.

Each generation will be less mature (at least until it reaches the same age as the last). Each new generation (there will have been a couple by 2037) will, despite its immaturity, regressiveness, and destructiveness, manage to yield forth individuals who inspire and transform, who rise above petty concerns and a world brimming with distraction and reveal something new about the capacity of mankind.

In short, the fundamental struggle will continue between technology that exalts our knowledge and capacity, and human nature that debases and waste them.

Existential threats to mankind will still occasionally surface. The threat of genocide, tyrants who oppress and reign in terror, the Earth groaning under its abuse as we attempt to listen better, to act better. But, as always there will be pockets of peace and prosperity where others can sit and take a moment to write an entry for 2062.

<comment><USER17> For those taking this seriously: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect>

<comment><USER16> kind of. They are obviously vague predictions, which is kind of a cop-out / cheating. But after reading how silly all the specific predictions seemed, even when correct, I got to thinking about things with a strong historical precedence- things that would likely remain true. The language used makes it sound kind of like the platitudes you would see in Barnum statements, but those lead to the Forer effect because some number of them _do_ apply to lots of people (leading people to confirmation bias and to assigning some weight to a non-existent authority). I hope that the imprecision in my predictions make them boring and obvious because they're true for the majority of 25-year spans in recorded history, not because they pretend to be tailored specifically toward individuals reading or toward this coming 25 years.

<comment><USER18> Be sure to print it out and put it in some sort of capsule though. It'll get lost in this HN thread and it's always fun to read back such things 25y later :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Some of these are very salient (Pohl), and some not so.

Brilliant points (Orson Scott Card):

> We must count ourselves lucky if anyone has leisure enough in 2012 to open > this time capsule and care what is inside. In 2012 Americans will see the > collapse of Imperial America, the Pax Americana, as having ended with our > loss of national will and national selflessness in the 1970s. Worldwide > economic collapse will have cost America its dominant world role; but it > will not result in Russian hegemony; their economy is too dependent on the > world economy to maintain an irresistible military force. ...

And this one by Roger Zelazny, pretty spot on until...

> It is good to see that a cashless, checkless society has just about come to > pass, that automation has transformed offices and robotics manufacturing in > mainly beneficial ways, including telecommuting, that defense spending has > finally slowed for a few of the right reasons,

I stopped reading at "defense spending has finally slowed"... no one could have predicted George W. Bush I guess

This one is almost completely opposite:

>Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease will be effectively cured. However, AIDS will not yet have been controlled. It will have become the leading cause of death worldwide with millions of new cases each year.

<comment><USER20> Not predicted Bush? Not predicted 9/11, more like. Which is strange too: one of my first impressions of the US was how vulnerable the country was. (Resilient too, but that was not surprising.)

<comment><USER21> 9/11 was a bee sting. Bush is the one that instituted the subsequent anaphylactic shock.

<comment><USER9> This has nothing to do with Bush specifically - virtually no policies linked to 9/11 were reversed since the end of Bush presidency, and some actually became worse (e.g. TSA). 9/11 raised the level of public concern with terrorist threats (real or imagined) so pretty much anybody would follow the pass of the least resistance and do roughly the same. Doing otherwise would require extraordinary vision and extraordinary power of persuasion to sell it, which none of the current politicians possesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Because we will be in a trough between 20th-century resources and 21st- century needs, in 2012 all storable forms of energy will be expensive. Machines will be designed to use only minimal amounts of it. At the same time, there will be a general expectation that a practical cheap-energy delivery system is just around the corner. Individuals basing their career plans on any aspect of technology will concentrate on that future, leaving contemporary machine applications to the less ambitious or to those who foresee a different future. The most socially approved-of individuals will constitute a narrowly focused aristocracy, and will be at the mercy of dull functionaries and secretive rebels who actually perform the day-to-day maintenance of society. It should be noted that most minimal-energy devices process information and microscopic materials, not consumer goods. The function of "our" society may depend on processing information and biotechnology to subjugate goods- producing societies. These societies may be geographically external, or may be yet another social stratum within central North America. In either case, crowd-management technologies will have to turn away from forms that might in any way impair capital goods production. Social regimentation will then have become so deft that most people will regard any other social milieu as pitiable. "

Most were quaintly charming, but that was right on. I'm surprised that fewer authors mentioned the information revolution as being a large force in society.

<comment><USER23> Portable energy isn't particularly expensive.

The cheap labor in Asia isn't particularly subjugated (and Western nations produce more material goods in absolute terms, never mind U.S. agriculture).

What's left?

<comment><USER24> Portable energy is _extremely_ expensive. The Tesla Roadster's battery pack costs upwards of $30k and weighs half a ton. Lithium AA batteries cost ~$400-500 per kW.

<comment><USER25> A gallon of gasoline costs ~$3.50 and weighs a few pounds.

<comment><USER26> And for the curious: contains 36 kWh.

<comment><USER27> Or, to be more precise, when burned in a modern car engine, produces 36kWh. If I pop it into my handy iMatterToEnergy(tm), I get substantially more...

<comment><USER9> If you had that, you could produce energy directly from air, or from waste, or from whatever. The point of gasoline is that the energy is cheaply extractable by chemical means (which means it does not require extraordinary energy levels to unlock and very expensive machines and protections to operate).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I find it curious that more than one of them predicted a decrease in literacy. Indeed, the opposite seems to have happened.

When I was in college, my English professor vowed that he would make us better writers by forcing us to write an essay _every_ _single_ _night_. And it really worked.

Yet we live in a world where people are writing, constantly writing, in a way my English teacher could barely have dreamed of. High school kids, debating endlessly with a hostile audience every day, are turning into _frighteningly_ persuasive writers all on their own.

<comment><USER29> People thought that TV & radio would take off, both media that don't require literacy to use/consume/watch. However the internet means everone has to read _AND_ write in order to interact. People have to be able to string words together. People have to be able to write to have friendly.

Computers have probably done lots for literacy.

You can see it a little bit now when much older people who don't use computers a lot, write things. They aren't very literate, probably because they haven't written as much as young people have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is wonderful. Their confident pessimism brightens my day :)

<comment><USER31> I was surprised at how pessimistic they were. Did the future really look that bleak 25 years ago?

<comment><USER32> The threat of nuclear conflict was very real during the Cold War. I remember my teacher asking the class (in 1984) who thought that a nuclear war was "likely in the next 10 years" and virtually every hand going up. Some teenage angst there perhaps, but it was as high in the collective conscious then as climate change is now.

<comment><USER33> I was lucky enough to grow up a few miles from an Air Force Base. When we did the "duck and cover" training thing, our science teacher told us it wouldn't matter because we'd turn to ash almost instantly anyway.

Recently there was mention of a poll of evangelical Christians and some large percentage thought the rapture would happen in their lifetime.

Honestly, that's pretty much literally the same psychology at work as those who believed in impending nuclear holocaust then and imminent climate doom now.

<comment><USER34> There's been a bunch of mini-dooms along the way as well, everything from y2k causing planes to drop from the sky to terrorists attacking cities more frequently.

I think it's in peoples nature to mentally take trend lines straight up, or even exponentially up. So, if there were x nuclear warheads in 1987, then they assumed it would be 100 * x in 2012.

The same pattern is at work with the climate now, as you've pointed out. Those who speak of the largest catastrophes get the most airtime, and it's a self- reinforcing cycle. Any room full of teenagers will inevitably predict the world will be uninhabitable by their 40th birthday, when in reality it will probably be much the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This one stood out for me:

"Japan will be the central economic power in the world, owning or controlling a significant part of European and American industries. This "economic dictatorship" will be beneficial to Japan's client states, since Japan benefits by keeping its customers healthy and wealthy. Indeed, a peaceful and prosperous world community will owe its existence to this Pax Japanica." --SHELDON GLASHOW

Replace Japan with China and he's spot on. The idea has also been given the name "Chimerica" by some economists [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimerica>].

<comment><USER6> China has indeed replaced Japan as the bogeyman in our tales of decline, but does not Santayana have something to say about how this tale ends?

<comment><USER35> Outside of the US, demand from China is mostly seen as a kind of saviour, bringing with it huge economic development, e.g. especially in Africa, Brazil and Australia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Frederik Pohl's essay is great. By 1987, he had been writing science fiction for nearly 50 years and I think had become embittered by the course of 20th century history. Read _Gateway_ (which I think came out that same year) to see his vision of 21st century Earth -- humanity lives on an overpolluted planet, with only a tiny portion of the population able to have access to "Full Medical" and live in clean, domed cities.

He's still alive, incidentally. And has turned to blogging: <http://www.thewaythefutureblogs.com/>

</comment><comment><USER37> "The American economy will have experienced a gentle yet relentless decline. Our children will not live such comfortable lives as we do. The spread between the rich and the poor will have grown, and crime will have become so prevalent as to threaten the social fabric. The rich and the poor will form 2 armed camps. Most automobiles and heavy machinery will be manufactured in Japanese owned planets located in America. Yet, agriculture and higher education will be our most successful exports. There will be no fast trains connecting American cities, but a network of levitated superconducting trains will be under construction in Western Europe and in Japan." - Sheldon Glashow

This was the most stunning part of the predictions as it's far more negative than what truly is the case, yet points to many truths and is what many could say about the next 25 years.

</comment><comment><USER38> > I would also like to take this opportunity to plug my new book, to be > published in both computerized and printed versions in time for 2012 > Christmas sales—but I've not yet decided on its proper title. Grandchildren > of Amber sounds at this point a little clumsy, but may have to serve.

Oh how I wish this was the case...

</comment><comment><USER39> Gregory Benford's notes are perhaps the most interesting, given his present position on the board of Genescient - a company that mines the genetics of longevity:

<http://www.genescient.com/about/board-of-directors/#gbenford>

Interesting for the pessimism, that is. Every age and sub-age and decade and year, and so on down, has its seeping pessimism - yet here we are, still.

Humans are good at foreseeing, identifying, and solving problems. Yet despite the vast evidence of that trait at work in our history, recent and otherwise, our capacity for progress and success is greatly underrated in every present day in comparison to our capacity to build problems.

<comment><USER40> Pessimism is helpful when it motivates us towards the right types of change: those that better humanity as a whole.

Optimism can have its day when we've moved past our tribalistic, petty natures. Until then, we have work to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> When I was a kid I bought a paperback copy of The People's Almanac: The Book of Predictions[1]. The book is mostly wacky, but over the decades I would thumb through it from time to time and catch something that someone got right, although mostly by accident. The psychics that were interviewed were _way_ off. The scientists? They did a lot better. It's a fun read if you can find a copy.

[1] ([http://books.google.com/books/about/The_People_s_Almanac_Pre...](http://books.google.com/books/about/The_People_s_Almanac_Presents_the_Book_o.html?id=07XMYmhoX2YC))

</comment><comment><USER42> _Most Americans are barely literate, think in images rather than symbols, and think the future is something that will happen to somebody else…_

Right on the money.

<comment><USER43> You left out the "just as today…" which rather changes the tone.

<comment><USER42> Nah, just making it shorter and easier to parse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Doom! Gloom! Disaster Just Around The Corner!

How depressing. Not just the worlds they paint, but that some of the brightest minds were (and are) trapped into such a negative way of looking at the future.

<comment><USER44> In 1987 the cold war was still going strong, and the threat of Mutually- Assured Destruction was palpably felt. The industrialised world was divided into two sides and it affected politics quite powerfully. In 1987 there weren't the public glimmerings of the fall of communism - the Berlin Wall was torn down in '89.

Since the fall of communism ended the two-superpower cold war, industrialised nations simply don't feel the threat of being sucked into a massively destructive third world war.

Don't forget also that many of those minds write about things happening in a post-apocalptic timeframe :)

<comment><USER7> waterlesscloud was probably a child or not born yet, so we who were alive and old enough back then sound just as weird as the World War and Great Depression generations sounded to us. S/he will be in the same boat 15-25 years from now :)

<comment><USER33> I was 19 in 1987. :-)

Old enough to be aware of the voices of Gloom and Doom even then.

There's always an excuse to believe in them. And there's always a choice to see it otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> TL;DR - By 2012 we'll have moon bases and missions to Mars if AIDS doesn't wipe us out first.

They really had high hopes for space exploration. Shame that never happened. :(

EDIT: Oh this was a good one (thankfully not at all accurate):

"TIM POWERS: Probate and copyright law will be entirely restructured by 2012 because people will be frozen at death, and there will be electronic means of consulting them. Many attorneys will specialize in advocacy for the dead."

</comment><comment><USER46> I think Sheldon Glasgow was the nearest to accurate. Most of their predictions were almost 100%. SHELDON GLASHOW

Written on the Eastern Air Shuttle between Boston and N.Y.

What will life be like in the year 2012? There will have been no nuclear war, and the threat of such a war will have been removed by the mutual nuclear disarmament of the major powers. SDI, Reagan's ill advised Star Wars program will have come to nothing.

Japan will be the central economic power in the world, owning or controlling a significant part of European and American industries. This "economic dictatorship" will be beneficial to Japan's client states, since Japan benefits by keeping its customers healthy and wealthy. Indeed, a peaceful and prosperous world community will owe its existence to this Pax Japanica.

Many diseases will be curable: diabetes and gout, for example, will be treated by 'genetic engineering' techniques. Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease will be effectively cured. However, AIDS will not yet have been controlled. It will have become the leading cause of death worldwide with millions of new cases each year.

The American economy will have experienced a gentle yet relentless decline. Our children will not live such comfortable lives as we do. The spread between the rich and the poor will have grown, and crime will have become so prevalent as to threaten the social fabric. The rich and the poor will form 2 armed camps. Most automobiles and heavy machinery will be manufactured in Japanese owned planets located in America. Yet, agriculture and higher education will be our most successful exports. There will be no fast trains connecting American cities, but a network of levitated superconducting trains will be under construction in Western Europe and in Japan.

</comment><comment><USER47> I reviewed these and counted 49 distinct and falsifiable predictions, of which I judged 11 correct (about 20%). Optimistic predictions fared better (30%) than pessimistic ones (10%). Zelazny did best with 4/8, followed by Benford and Glashow. Full accounting here: <http://lumma.org/temp/1987-2012_Predictions.txt>

</comment><comment><USER48> I find it rather gratifying - even comforting - that by and large their predictions missed the mark by a wide margin.

Predictions are the product of your current experience - your time until now. Many brilliant people try and predict the future, but in the end the future is up to us.

</comment><comment><USER49> SOme lesson to learn from this: most people are wrong, and totally wrong about the near future (provided 25 years is considered "near").

That should say a lot about not listening to what's being said currently about what will happen in 25 years from now.

</comment><comment><USER50> Worth a read: Pitfalls of Prophecy: Why Science Fiction So Often Fails to Predict the Future , <http://www.locusmag.com/2009/Westfahl_Predictions.html>. Why do they think that the fact that they write science fiction makes it worth listening to their predictions anyways? Well, besides the genre inferiority complex, which requires its hacks to pretend they're prophets, so they can feel important.

</comment><comment><USER51> What's always interesting about these kinds of predictions is not the predictions themselves, but the window into the hopes and fears of people at the time. It's all here: Japan as an economic superpower, space travel, AIDS, poverty, hunger. Now compare to predictions that sci-fi writers today make about 2037 and you'll have a similar window into our own hopes and fears--many of which will be just as accurate, at least in the next 25 years.

</comment><comment><USER52> Lesson: Don't be pessimistic.

The disaster scenarios you imagine are inevitable are really just the worst case, and the things that actually problems aren't thing you can predict.

</comment><comment><USER53> GREETINGS TO 2012:

If we had a time-phone, now in 1987, we would beg you to forgive us. We have burdened you with impossible debts, wasted and polluted the planet that should have been your rich heritage, left you instead a dreadful legacy of ignorance, want, and war.

Yet, in spite of that, we have a proud faith in you. Faith that you have saved yourselves, that you are giving birth to no more children than you can love and nurture, that you have cleansed and healed your injured planet, ended hunger, conquered crime, learned to live in peace.

Looking toward a better future for you than we can see for ourselves, we trust that you will use your computers and all your new electronic media to inform and liberate, not to dominate and oppress, trust that you will employ the arts of genetic engineering to advance the human species and make your children better than yourselves. We know that you will be inventing new sciences that would dazzle us, opening brave new frontiers, climbing on toward the stars.

We live again through you.

Sincerely,

Jack Williamson

</comment><comment><USER8> All these writers clearly had no clue about the future. Even "Back to the Future" was much closer in spite of being a comedy.

</comment><comment><USER9> What is surprising in these predictions is how near-sighted many of them are. Basically most of the writers just took popular topics of the day and wrote along the lines "will it get better? will it get worse?" Very few tried to think outside of the box and imagine future where their current concerns won't be concerns at all and instead different hot topics will arise. I do not blame them - it's almost impossible feat to achieve, but I still would expect from scifi writers a better detachment from politics de-jour and current fears and concerns.

I like Silverbergs and Zelazny's ones the best. Too sad Zelazny didn't live to present us that 2012 Christmas Grandchildren of Amber.

</comment><comment><USER54> Goes to show, just how much easier it is to write about a future, than it is to predict the future.

Though on whole, if you grab a statement out of each (almost) you have the world of today.

</comment><comment><USER55> My favorite of the bunch, Roger Zelazny, was also most accurate:

 _"ROGER ZELAZNY

It is good to see that a cashless, checkless society has just about come to pass, that automation has transformed offices and robotics manufacturing in mainly beneficial ways, including telecommuting, that defense spending has finally slowed for a few of the right reasons, that population growth has also slowed and that biotechnology has transformed medicine, agriculture and industry—all of this resulting in an older, slightly conservative, but longer- lived and healthier society possessed of more leisure and a wider range of educational and recreational options in which to enjoy it—and it is very good at last to see this much industry located off-planet, this many permanent space residents and increased exploration of the solar system. I would also like to take this opportunity to plug my new book, to be published in both computerized and printed versions in time for 2012 Christmas sales—but I've not yet decided on its proper title. Grandchildren of Amber sounds at this point a little clumsy, but may have to serve"_

* We're mostly a cashless society using cards and electronic payment -- CORRECT

* Automation has transformed offices and robotics manufacturing in mainly beneficial ways -- CORRECT

* Defense spending has finally slowed for a few of the right reasons -- MIXED : True as a ratio, but not in absolute $$$

* population growth has also slowed -- CORRECT

* Biotechnology has transformed medicine, agriculture and industry—all of this resulting in an older, slightly conservative, but longer-lived and healthier society possessed of more leisure and a wider range of educational and recreational options -- CORRECT on nearly all counts

* ...in which to enjoy it—and it is very good at last to see this much industry located off-planet, this many permanent space residents and increased exploration of the solar system. -- WRONG

* I would also like to take this opportunity to plug my new book, to be published in both computerized and printed versions in time for 2012 Christmas sales—but I've not yet decided on its proper title. Grandchildren of Amber sounds at this point a little clumsy, but may have to serve -- ...

Despite all the other excellent predictions, his death came much earlier than he forsaw :(

</comment><comment><USER56> I grew up in the 80s and the one main thing I can recall is the ever present fear of nuclear war.

If I had made a prediction back then I would say there would certainly be some sort of nuclear event at some point in the next twenty or thirty years.

</comment><comment><USER57> > Bases on the moon, an expedition to Mars…all done.

How badly we underperformed.

<comment><USER58> No one here to blame other than political agenda. I fully feel we could have been in preparation for a humanized mission to Mars at this point. However, we've wasted too much time funding war and whether or not abortion and gay marriage should be legal instead. It's actually quite sad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> "Doom, doom, doom-doom, doom, doom ... doomie-doomie-doom, doomie-doomie- doomie-doom ... doom, doom. The end." \-- _The Doom Song_ , GIR, _Invader Zim_

</comment><comment><USER60> Gregory Benford: "Berkeley, California will have a theme park devoted to its high period—the 1960s."

He's right. Berkeley has People's Park. As for the theme, well...

</comment><comment><USER61> What's interesting to me is how some made assumptions that didn't turn out to be true but got much correct anyway.

Algis Budrys stands out in particular.

</comment><comment><USER62> "Berkeley, California will have a theme park devoted to its high period—the 1960s."

This pretty accurately describes Telegraph Ave.

</comment><comment><USER63> A wonderful link. My votes are: Wolverton for prescience, Silverberg for wisdom. Your AUs per year may vary.

</comment><comment><USER57> > Most Americans are barely literate, think in images rather than symbols

Any comments on this?

<comment><USER64> It rubbed me the wrong way too. I'm a visual thinker myself, and I don't consider myself barely literate :p

Then again, I guess it could be interpreted in a different way...

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Huh, no predictions that Tom Cruise would still not be exhibiting any OT powers.

</comment><comment><USER66> As much as I love Gene Wolfe, his predictions are just embarrassing.

</comment><comment><USER67> Orson Scott Card wins.

</comment><comment><USER68> Is this the same L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame ?

<comment><USER69> Yes. Before that, his career was SF pulp writer. Not a great one, mind you. Religion pays better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70>
      Isaac Asimov       Died 1992
      Gregory Benford    Alive
      Algis Budrys       Died 2008
      Gerald Feinberg    Died 1992
      Sheldon Glashow    Alive
      Frederik Pohl      Alive
      Jerry Pournelle    Alive
      Tim Powers         Alive
      Orson Scott Card   Alive
      Robert Silverberg  Alive
      Jack Williamson    Died 2006
      Gene Wolfe         Alive
      Dave Wolverton     Alive
      Roger Zelazny      Died 1997

A lot more of them have survived to be embarrassed by their predictions than I had thought.

<comment><USER71> > A lot more of them have survived to be embarrassed by their predictions

Predictions are hard, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra

But seriously, I was in my mid-20's in 1987 and not a lot of these predictions seem outlandish having lived through that time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> It seems that the major pass-time among people who read time capsule predictions is to count the most idiot things as "hits" as hail the people with the most bizarre ideas as prophets.

In that spirit, here's a few "hits" for everyone here:

"A new world order will emerge from famine, disease, and social dislocation: the re-tribalization of Africa, the destruction of the illusion of Islamic unity, the struggle between aristocracy and proletariat in Latin America—without the financial support of the industrialized nations, the old order will be gone." -- Orson Scott Card

"America and the U.S.S.R. preserve an uneasy accord, each testing the other's will within well-defined limits. [snip]Vestiges of reading, writing, and spelling remain in the curricula of the public schools. Those who can read a few hundred common words are counted literate. The schools train their students for employment—how to report to computers and follow instructions. [snip] There is little sex outside marriage, which normally includes a legal contract. A single instance of infidelity is amply sufficient to terminate a marriage, with damages to the aggrieved party [snip] The population of the planet is below six billion." -- Gene Wolfe

"Most Americans are barely literate, think in images rather than symbols [snip] Berkeley, California will have a theme park devoted to its high period—the 1960s. [snip] There will have been major "diebacks" in overcrowded Third World countries, all across southern Asia and through Africa. This will be a major effect keeping population from reaching 10 billion." -- Gregory Benford

<comment><USER64> _Most Americans are barely literate, think in images rather than symbols_

This rubbed me the wrong way. Thinking that way does not make a person stupid or illiterate.</comment></comment>


Humans are Naturally Tone Deaf to Probabilities - <AUTHOR> http://michaelgr.com/2008/10/30/most-people-are-tone-deaf-to-probabilities/

<comment><USER2> I have consistently observed this and been frustrated at decision-makers for making what looks like fear-driven rather than rational decisions.

I like this article because it gives a hypothesis that explains this. But how do you educate people?

When I make cost-benefit analyses involving probabilities, an expected value calculation is really important, and I don't think everyone knows how to do it. So teaching that seems to be valuable. But when people don't have hard probabilities to look at, as the author notes, they seem to overestimate risk. That's something that can't be helped by teaching a formula - you have to teach an intuition.

Strategic games have probably helped me develop this intuition. Starcraft and the board game Puerto Rico both require you to continually estimate risks and rewards of taking certain actions.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's very frustrating to watch. I have a sneaky suspicion that politicians, or at least their advisors, are well aware of the bare statistical truth. But they can't take the counterintuitive but right stance because they would alienate their voters who don't understand it.

This is one of the downsides of democracy.

<comment><USER4> Well, you are definitely right about one thing: policy analysis is, unfortunately, a task too exhaustive for the average American. Therefore, I can definitely imagine a counterintuitive (but right) stance turning off voters.

However, one thing that I have learned throughout this whole financial crisis is that people do care. And regardless of whether or not the underlying problem(s) are generally understood, the public wants solutions...and good ones.

Political stances are always under a lot of scrutiny from the university professors and media networks. So if the general public cannot analyze and understand the full situation they will instead rely on and digest the consensus of the intellectual community. I cannot see politicians (at least smart ones) worrying about having their their voters understanding their policies. They have bigger fish to fry. They have to be right, they have a record to defend, and they want to carry on a political career that can only advance with a record of retrospectively, good judgment. Matthew Arnold put it best with, "The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Back in April, a number of papers were running a story on the Monty Hall problem in primate research. The NYT ran a story with a detailed explanation of how the problem works, and even provided a flash-animated demo so you could work through it yourself.

Nonetheless, it was amusing to read the wild-eyed diatribes in the user comments. You couldn't explain the problem in a clearer way, and yet plenty of people simply refuse to accept a result that seems counterintuitive.

<comment><USER6> After reading your comment, I immediately headed over to Wikipedia to refresh my memory on the Monty Hall problem. The results of my search are a good illustration of why I love the internet:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem>

The article is nearly 6000 words and includes diagrams, detailed mathematical explanations, a very detailed synopsis of the history of the problem, and links to like 50 sources.

All for a probability puzzle. Unbelievable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find it interesting that the best model we have for how the brain operates is a Bayesian inference engine, but most people can't even apply proper Bayesian reasoning.

</comment><comment><USER8> Log scale probabilities are a lot easier to grasp, but we still do not have a unit name for them :(</comment>


Why is the macro systems in lisps considered so valuable - <AUTHOR> https://clojureverse.org/t/why-is-the-macro-systems-in-lisps-considered-so-valuable/2622 <comment><USER2> Too long did not read. But as I recall it most users do not understand that macros are foremostly tool to enhance compilation. It does not matter how shitty the macro execution is, all that matters is the end product, which is to be compiled. The syntax and code extension function is just annoying mess and regular users should not be encouraged to do that.

<comment><USER2> What is this downvoting and "flagging" thingy? What does it even mean? If you have opposing view about macroes, why dont you Just tell it?</comment></comment>


Androids will behave more like iPhones or Vice-versa? - <AUTHOR> I read an article on nytimes.com (https://nyti.ms/2WcPHtr) that claims newer  iOs 13 and Android Q will speed up old and new smartphones.<p>How true is that? Have you guys seen any significant proofs and changes? <comment><USER2> Such claim is usually quite difficult to verify for old android as getting update after two years on an android phone is quite a rarity.</comment>


Ask HN: As a developer/designer/founder, what services/tools are you paying for? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> My answer:

Main, kinda obvious stuff:

\- Github subscription

\- Digital Ocean hosting

\- Namecheap domains

\- Udemy courses (learning react from Stephen Grider, awesome)

\- Audible audiobooks

Other:

\- [https://gingkoapp.com/](https://gingkoapp.com/) for breaking down goals, writing, all sorts of stuff

\- Netflix

\- [http://www.harmontown.com](http://www.harmontown.com) \- I love great comedy

\- Fenix - great twitter client

\- Editorial - brilliant text editor for iOS

\- PocketCasts - good podcasts app on android

\- Moon reader pro - fantastic ebook reader for android

Awesome free tools that I use:

\- Emacs with org mode for pretty much everything

\- draw.io for diagrams

\- figma - discovered it only recently, an insanely brilliant design app.

\- Sometimes workflowy for notes

\- Sometimes trello for organizing bugs/features

</comment><comment><USER2> DNSimple for domains and DNS, a tiny DigitalOcean VM, a Heroku dyno or two, GitHub, Feedbin for RSS, 1Password's absolutely fantastic personal/family subscription service, FastMail (think "Google Apps with a human you can contact, and who speaks English, and who tells you before and after he/she does things, and somehow provides this for a latte a month"), Netflix.</comment>


Is it worth the trouble? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/personal-growth/is-it-worth-the-trouble-9792513b9bfa <comment><USER2> _try NOT to live as GOOD as possible but as MUCH as possible_</comment>


Nbvcxz: Password Strength Estimator – Initial Release - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/GoSimpleLLC/nbvcxz <comment><AUTHOR> Developer here,

At my company we needed a Java library that did the same type of work that zxcvbn does, and back in 2014 when I started looking around, I didn't see anything. So I took it upon myself to create a Java implementation of the methods that zxcvbn uses. We've been using it internally for a good while, but I didn't get around to cleaning up, and commenting the code until a few days ago. I just released it publicly yesterday.

I wanted to focus on being highly configurable for different use-cases, and I think I achieved that pretty well, though any feedback is more than welcome.</comment>


Evernote adds reminders - <AUTHOR> http://blog.evernote.com/blog/2013/05/23/evernote-reminders-are-here-on-mac-ios-and-web-2/ <comment><USER2> The last time I tried Evernote it already had way too many features. It always felt like they were trying to way too many things at once, to the detriment of all of them. Apparently this feature is the "most requested feature of all time", but I'd guess that half of the other ones aren't.

For example, my impression was that Evernote was about being able to store all of your memories, files, photos, etc. for future reference. But then the biggest use case highlighted by this video is for teams working on task lists together... Seem like very different use cases. I can't be simple to design for that unfocused of a goal, and it shows.

<comment><USER3> For your purposes, something like Notational Velocity or nvAlt on a Mac, Resoph Notes on Windows, or PlainText on iOS might be much better products. They use SimpleNote or Dropbox for cloud storage and synching across devices.

<comment><USER4> I've used those, and they fail for my use cases because you can't put all kinds of stuff in them. Most of my notes and code are textual, but sometimes I have to use rich text and colors and embedded pictures. Sometimes I need to store audio or embed arbitrary attachments in my notes.

Things like Notational Velocity can be simpler because what they do is simpler.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> OT, but I'm working on a modular Evernote-style system based on MultiMarkdown files: <https://github.com/seagreen/baudelaire>

Here's the first thing built off of it (it lets you make a notebook public): <http://pensieve.housejeffries.com/>

I love Evernote and think it's a great service, but there should be a simpler way to get most of the same functionality. MultiMarkdown files let you do this while still being able to use vim, grep, etc.

Criticism would be very welcome. So far this has just been a fun practice project, but would anyone find it useful if it was more developed?

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "I love Evernote and think it's a great service, but there should be a simpler way to get most of the same functionality. MultiMarkdown files let you do this while still being able to use vim, grep, etc."

What you're building is cool but markdown, vim and grep aren't simple. Evernote is.

<comment><USER6> Evernote is simple to learn. His system is architecturally simpler.

<comment> k-mcgrady Good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Revolutionary.

In all seriousness, this was a feature that I've been waiting on for a while-- without reminders, I've had to go back-and-forth between the native OS X Reminders app and Evernote. In a way, this has sculpted my relationships with the two apps: I use Reminders for anything short-term (even things that might be considered 'Notes') and Evernote for anything long-term. Maybe that will change.

</comment><comment><USER8> Can I set reminders for all the checkboxes that I'm creating inside each note? I would much rather prefer that. Having a new note for each todo seems like overkill.

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe now that they've dealt with the "important" stuff like reminders they can finally deliver the long overdue 2fa.</comment>


Why Warren Buffett is gambling on Japan's distinctive dealmakers - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/e20708ac-347b-47de-b79a-ab7fb9088d6f <comment><USER2> First gold[0], now Japan[1]?

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24166302](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24166302)

[1] "My thoughts about Japan? I am not a macro guy. Now I say to myself, Berkshire Hathaway can borrow money for 10 years at one percent in Japan now. One percent! And I say to myself, gee, I took Graham's class 45 years ago and I have been working hard at this thing all my life, maybe I can earn more than 1% you know, if I really work hard at it. 1% annually, it doesn't seem impossible, does it? So, I wouldn't want to get involved in currency risk, so I'd have to do it in something that was yen-denominated. So I'd have to be in Japanese real estate or a Japanese business or something of the sort and all I have to do is beat one percent. That's all the money is going to cost me and I can get it for 10 years. So far I haven't found anything. It's kind of interesting. The Japanese companies earn very low returns on equity. They have a bunch of businesses that earn 4, 5, 6% on equity and it is very hard to earn a lot as an investor when the business you are in doesn't earn very much money." [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MHIcabnjrA&t=10m23s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MHIcabnjrA&t=10m23s)

<comment><USER3> > The Japanese companies earn very low returns on equity. They have a bunch of > businesses that earn 4, 5, 6% on equity and it is very hard to earn a lot as > an investor when the business you are in doesn't earn very much money.

Not sure I understand what he meant there. 4-6% seems perfectly fine if your loan is for 1%? Why isn't 4-6% enough to pursue?</comment></comment>


Synchronous Text - <AUTHOR> http://exple.tive.org/blarg/2019/04/26/synchronous-text/ <comment><USER2> The requirements all look like they are leaning towards Slack?

<comment><USER3> Please let them pick something that has either a decent irc gateway or a native client!

<comment><USER4> pretty sure having a decent irc gateway would put them right back in the same boat with regards to harassment and anonymity. no? If you have IRC gateway you have all the problems of IRC, only with a different client.

<comment><USER5> Pretty sure that spending a few minutes configuring their IRC server to require logins solves the problems with harassment and anonymity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nextcloud talk isn't bad.

</comment><comment><USER7> the title of the article is super unhelpful. not even a clickbait.</comment>


Telega.el: GNU Emacs Telegram client (unofficial) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zevlg/telega.el <comment><USER2> "Telega" literally means "cart" in Russian. In crime jargon it also means "written complaint" or (very rarely) "telegram". I appreciated the name.

<comment><USER3> It's also has wide usage as synonymous of "Telegram app", I guess it's the main reason behind naming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> May you reconsider changing your title screenshot [1]?

Now it contains chat references to porn & other 18+ channel with obscene language (in Russian).

Not exactly thing that you want to send to your colleagues.

[1]: [https://github.com/zevlg/telega.el#screenshots](https://github.com/zevlg/telega.el#screenshots)

</comment><comment><USER5> I appreciate that people are writing Emacs apps that demand SVG support. It should be enabled in the official Homebrew MacOS Emacs.

</comment><comment><USER6> Cool to see a follow Telegram developer on Hacker News! We're building an unofficial Telegram client for business users & teams, also using TDLib and the Telegram API. It's a great ecosystem to be in (we're long Telegram!)

Nice work!

<comment><USER7> I'm interested in that - we use the official telegram app for work but I can see where it can be improved. You can email me when you launch admin at shasnam dot ai

<comment><USER6> Hey Alessandro - just got your survey response, thanks for signing up.

Happy to give you access to our preview version. I'll email you to coordinate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Would be interesting to see a vim Telegram client as well, if it's possible at all.

</comment><comment><USER9> Might be better to capitalize the T in telegram, I thought this was a novelty project that literally lets you send telegrams.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm sorry but what is the point of this?

<comment><USER11> When I started programming lisp, I was more or less forced to use Emacs. I hated it. The benefits of slime and paredit made me stick to it, but God I found it awful.

But over time something happened. I gradually realized that Emacs does everything I really want from a computer except painlessly browse the web. It was everything I ever wished for an OS to be.

The lowest common denominator of what I do on a computer is text. Text happens to be what Emacs does. Better than everything else, in my opinion. It is like if someone took all the time spent on other things and spent it all in how to efficiently manipulate and to some extent present text.

The more things that lets me stay in this wonderful text-centered world and the atrocities that is most modern OSes the happier I am.

The only thing I dislike about Emacs is that I can't configure Mac os to stay enough out of the way to let me forget it.</comment></comment>


Legalising marijuana: the view from Mexico - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/legalising-marijuana?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709 <comment><USER2> If I were running a Mexican drug cartel, I'd be trying to ensure all the drugs I was importing into the US stayed illegal there. _How_ would I do it? And can we detect them doing that? It would be fascinating if we could, and spam filtering showed me people often leave trails they don't realize they're leaving.

<comment><USER3> You asked how a criminal organization would do it; so this gets a little dark:

\- Go to both main cities where marijuana is legalized and make up fake scenes where marijuana seems to be responsible for some tragedy (like multiple fatal car accidents where there is marijuana all over the car). People love sensationalism and controversies.

\- Another way is so to lobby for all the politicians who strongly oppose legalization (using a legal company as facade of course)

\- Another way is to kill political leaders that are in favor of legalization and make it look like unrelated accidents/crimes (otherwise the movement gets sympathy by the victimization of the cause).

Their weak point is that they are not as organized as one may think; and their savageness sometimes lead them to do stupid things (like kidnapping hackers to steal credit cards); most of them are probably not tech savy so there may be many ways to intercept their communications.

<comment><USER4> Variation of second point: Kill political leaders who are _against_ legalization, and make it clear it's because of their position on this issue. This would imply that pro-legalization people are willing to murder to get their way, and so in sympathy the public would vote against legalization. [Call this the 'anti-legalization martyr' play.]

<comment><USER5> They are able to kill with relative impunity in Mexico because the Govt isnt big enough or strong enough to stop them. If they killed an American politician, regardless of which side they are on, it would draw the focus of the US law enforcement agencies. This would cause them some very serious issues.

They have been careful to keep the violence south of the border and I think they are cognizant of the fact that killing south of the Rio Grande brings profit, killing north of the Rio Grande can bring ruin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> (I am strongly pro legalisation of cannabis. I think prohibition has caused a lot of harm. I do not take cannabis, and have only ever used it a few times when I was much much younger.)

Some people who want to keep cannabis illegal claim they are reducing harm - reducing harm to users, to those users' families, and to wider society.

I think there might be causal links between cannabis and mental health problems. And there are a bunch of self-medication and masking problems too. But even though I believe this I cannot understand how people do not see the much worse harm that prohibition causes.

In England there is a problem with criminal gangs using trafficked workers, keeping those people imprisoned in houses which are then turned into cannabis farms. If Bob wants to use cannabis it is more sensible for him to buy it from a criminal gang than to grow a few small plants purely for personal use because the crime he commits by growing it is much more serious.

Reading about the situation in Mexico is horrific.

> _In Mexico relatively few people take drugs. But many are murdered as a > result of the export business. About 60,000 have been killed by organised > crime during the past six years._

Sixty thousand? That's a mind-boggling amount. (There's a tv programme in the UK at the moment about road safety, with lots of "how do we reduce road deaths?" About 2,000 people die each year in RTAs in the UK.)

Even stupid people should know there's a serious problem when they're told there is a criminal called "the Soupmaker" who dissolves victims in vats of sodium hydroxide.

([http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/09/mexicos_...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/09/mexicos_drug_war))

> _another collaborator of Sinaloa's, Teodoro García, was captured in the > coastal city of La Paz. He was accused of ordering his victims to be > dissolved in barrels of acid by his henchman, known as "the soup-maker"._

<comment><USER7> I'm from Mexico, and I can tell you what is happening here is worrisome. The death toll during Calderon's presidency is way over the roof. He declared war to the cartel's like no one had ever dared to do. This caused a big uproar because know there's a real problem with trying to keep your safe route of drugs.

I'm also pro legislation (have never consumed anything) and the only thing that worries me more than what is happening right now is that maybe, with legislation, cartel's are going to jump to the next profitable illegal activity they can find (kidnapping, extorsion, whatever). I've lived in the same city all my life, and for the last 2 years, for the first time ever, I don't feel safe anymore. When I see soldiers driving around town with their hummer-esque vehicles, I can't find tranquility.

Reading this article gives me some peace, but I can't find any real assurance that this will stop any soon.

<comment><USER8> Why jump to something else that's illegal?

I would suspect with legalization the cartels would have an advantage as a legal drug seller since they already have the distribution network and systems in place.

There would also be less need for violence with the ability to take people to court for breaking contractual deals.

<comment><USER9> "Why jump to something else that's illegal?"

Because it's the prohibition that causes the absurd profit margins they are accustomed to. It's unlikely that they would accept an average profiting legal product rather than go after the next absurdly profitable illegal product. Also, their entire business is based around providing a prohibited product. They wouldn't likely be keen to completely change business models.

<comment><USER10> The market will get much smaller for people who want to sell cannabis because lots of consumers will grow it themselves.

Many cannabis dealer will also try to start larger growing operations. Same thing happened in the Netherlands.

<comment><USER11> Actually, growing your own is still illegal in Washington. Colorado limits each person to 6 plants. Will be interesting to see how the difference effects the markets.

<comment><USER12> Actually, if either of these conditions are met, it's legal to grow in Washington:

      * Medical cannabis patient (limited to some small number of plants, like CO), or
      * State-licensed grower under I-502

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Really? Only now people are working out that legalising pot destroys cartels? Not just that, the networks too.

Imagine if the tobacco companies sold it. Imagine if the gov told them to secretly stock up , and suddenly put it on the market at half the usual price. Imagine all those dealer holding stock that was on credit. Imagine not being able to sell it. A huge market crash. Game over.

All the gov do now is hold the prices high. They actually do control the market. A bit socialist, no? Why not let the worshipped capitalism deal with these cartels? If all western governments legalised, these evil cartels would be out of business.

Any one worked out how much tax revenue the governments could make? Or would people just grow their own?

Anyway, the best way to destroy these cartels over night (ish) is instant legalisation, and the tax raised can pay directly for rehab, etc. Or is the too communist?

<comment><USER14> I had the same reaction. It scares me to think that intelligent people are just now realizing the consequences of making a highly-demanded product illegal. Really, all drugs should be legalized and controlled. The problem is that we're not only facing religious drones who can't see past the end of their noses, but more importantly, we're up against big money. And big money has power. I'm talking not only the cartels but private prison owners. Do you think those guys want to see their customer(prisoner) numbers decrease? Or what about law enforcement and the drug agency? You think those guys want their funding cut? Because if you remove drug-crime control you remove the majority of their work. The convenient thing is that this drug-scare hysteria that has this nation by the balls is what keeps this endless cycle going. Those who benefit where the "righteous" mask of public protector or advocates for our children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The calculations don't take into account the onerous taxes that are going to be imposed on legal marijuana, and probably at some point there are going to be limits on the THC levels that can legally be sold. Illegal weed is going to end up still competitive.

<comment><USER16> This is unfortunately quite likely. Witness the involvement of organized crime in cigarette smuggling as cigarette taxes have risen.

If we want to minimize the involvement of organized crime, not only does marijuana have to be legalized, but the taxes have to be low enough for black market alternatives not to be worth the trouble.

<comment><USER17> black market prices are so far out of whack with market value (apart from the value of getting something your govt. has declared illegal) that taxes would have to be ridiculously high to make prices even come close to street cost of equivalent drugs. Either that or street price collapses to legal price (perhaps minus taxes) and criminals are less incented to participate due to drastically reduced margins. High taxes really are only a concern for someone looking to buy wholesale, an individual user buying say 3.5-7 grams at a time would likely be paying, at most, a few dollars in taxes, which is hardly prohibitive since the same amount illegally costs ~40-80 dollars afaik (note: I don't dabble in illegal drugs but may have used some in high-school, so this cost knowledge is a little out of date, but I suspect not horribly off).

<comment><USER16> You're talking about current illegal drug prices. When taxes on legal drugs are high enough, criminals selling legal drugs on the black market could still make a tidy profit while undercutting the cost of legal drugs. Granted, those profits won't be nearly as obscene as those garnered now from the sale of illegal drugs, but profitable enough to stay in business.

Legal cigarette prices in the US are nowhere near the price of illegal drugs, but the taxes on them still provide enough incentive for organized crime to get involved in smuggling cigarettes and selling them on the black market, and enough incentive for cigarette users to buy black market cigarettes.

The same is likely to happen with legalized marijuana, unless the price (including taxes) is kept low enough to make buying black market marijuana not worth the trouble -- much like it's usually not worth the trouble to buy moonshine in the US, when there's plenty of relatively cheap, legal and safe alcohol available.

<comment><USER17> Yes, my primary point was that the current cost on the illegal market (which is what attracts criminal elements) is so ridiculously out of whack with the actual cost of production that taxes would have to be massively high to drive a black market similar to what exists when it is illegal. Will there be some people still getting it 'illegally'? Sure, as you pointed out there is a black market for cigarettes, but it pales in profit comparison to markets that are entirely illegal, and cartels aren't going to be attracted to nickel and dime markets when they have so many other ways to make money.

American organized crime may be involved in black market cigarettes, but that could also be viewed as a sign of them searching for new revenue streams as their old(er) ones get shut down or become less reliable. Organized crime also used to be involved in alcohol, not so much anymore yet it is still heavily taxed in most peoples eyes.

Further, I assume that legal providers would need some sort of approval/licensing from the state. Illegal providers would not pursue that. So while they would save money dodging the licensing/tax issues they likely could not cost compete with legal producers as they are taking a greater risk they would want to be compensated for (i.e. arrest). The illegal producers would then be doing a risky activity (they wouldn't be shielded by the legality if there are rules around production/supply that they aren't following) and incurring costs that legal producers would not incur. Whether those costs offset the licensing/tax issues is unclear, but I suspect they would.

I don't think your claim is preposterous (that taxes need to be kept in check), but I also am not convinced that taxes will be so high as to drive this kind of market. Time will tell since more states have recently introduced marijuana legalization (assuming the DEA doesn't go all gangbusters on said states).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why should the US marijuana have a higher THC content than the Mexican one? Can't Mexican plantations grow the stronger type? Or is there a difference in the agricultural process that influences the THC content?

I don't understand this part of the article.

<comment><USER10> Mexican cannabis is grown outdoor without much care, while most commercially grown cannabis is grown in greenhouses or for small growers under artificial light (or even in hydro setups).

Most people today do not go to their dealer and ask for the kinds of cannabis they have. They just take whatever is there.

<comment><USER19> I would assume that it's very difficult to assess the quality of cannabis which puts sellers of high quality weed in a difficult position. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons>

<comment><USER20> The cannabis market doesn't match Akerlof's conditions. Due to the high rate of repeat business and relative ease of evaluating quality post-transaction, reputation functions as an effective public quality assurance mechanism.

Forced reliance on word-of-mouth advertising is very important as well in avoiding the market for lemons problem, but I don't think Akerlof considered that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As tempting as it is, every time I read about legalizing marijuana, I'm reminded that implementing that legalization would be an enormous headache ( [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever- legali...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized- marijuana.html) ). I believe that the War On Drugs is counterproductive and suspicious to the degree that it's outright evil, but fixing the situation is going to be very difficult and it serves no one well to ignore that difficulty.

</comment><comment><USER22> I would have thought that the weed for the pacific northwest would come from BC.

<comment><USER12> I don't have any sources to cite, obviously, but from what I know of it, quite a lot is grown locally (i.e., in Washington state). It's maybe less risky than moving it over the Canada-US border, and Washington has been fairly soft on marijuana users for a while (medical marijuana for two decades[0], lowest priority for the Seattle police department since 2003[1]).

There have been ~illegal medical marijuana coops in Seattle for a long time now[2]. (IIRC, Washington's medical marijuana laws allowed patients to grow a few plants, but didn't allow for dispensaries[3]. Obviously federal law is different, which is what the DEA is acting on.) Those coops are largely stocked from locally grown plants. It wouldn't surprise me if some medical marijuana patients also sold into the grey/black market for some extra cash.

[0]: [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51a&full...](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51a&full=true)

[1]: [http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph- brs.exe?d=CODE...](http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph- brs.exe?d=CODE&s1=12A.20.060.snum.&Sect5=CODE1&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/code1.htm&r=1&f=G)

[2]: [http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/15/feds- ra...](http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/15/feds-raiding-pot- dispensaries-in-western-washington)

[3]: <http://www.komonews.com/news/local/125532903.html>

<comment><USER17> From my experience (back in the high school days, I don't dabble anymore, so this is somewhat dated but not massively so) most high-quality marijuana in Washington comes from north of the border. While Washington has been fairly lax on consumers (as you point out), they have not been lax on growers, and definitely not growers on industrial scales [0][1][2] (though 2 does say they are seeing more local growing). Also, smuggling from BC is fairly sophisticated and most smugglers are doing it in both directions and have some sophistication. They generally don't just try and drive it through a manned checkpoint. Helicopters have been known to be involved [3][4][5]. It is not uncommon for BC marijuana to be smuggled in to Washington and exchanged for cocaine that came to Washington from California, and came to California from Mexico. When I was on a grand jury a couple of years back we saw numerous indictments involving this kind of thing (i.e. smugglers from Canada bringing down pot/ecstasy and exchanging it for cocaine and heroin in Washington).

[0] <http://www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/hotline.htm>

[1] [http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/08/23/1612457/3-jailed- in...](http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/08/23/1612457/3-jailed-in-pot-bust- worth-about.html)

[2] [http://www.king5.com/news/cities/renton/2-arrested-in-DEA- ra...](http://www.king5.com/news/cities/renton/2-arrested-in-DEA-raid-of- Renton-home-143476886.html)

[3] <http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1211/121107seattle.htm>

[4] [http://www.amsterdammarijuanaseedbank.com/news/Helicopters.h...](http://www.amsterdammarijuanaseedbank.com/news/Helicopters.html)

[5] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- columbia/story/2009/03...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- columbia/story/2009/03/24/bc-smuggling-operation-busted.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "In Mexico relatively few people take drugs. "

Really? Where are the stats to back this up?

"the president, has said that if Americans cannot bring themselves to stop buying drugs, they ought to consider "market alternatives", by which he means legalisation. Vicente Fox and Ernesto Zedillo, the two previous presidents of Mexico, have reached the same conclusion."

So, the leaders of Mexico can't seem to stop corruption and blame the US.

"That would make it more expensive than imported Mexican pot. But home-grown marijuana is much better quality than the Mexican sort."

Which is why there will always be a market for Mexican pot. You would think that people wouldn't buy junk quality items...but Walmart is still a billion dollar business.

Legalizing it will just make it easier for the cartels to get over the borders with their product. The violence will not stop because the Mexican government can't get their shit together and police their own country.

The reason the end of prohibition in the US meant the end of gangster-owned territories is because you couldn't buy off any cop, official, or judge in the country.

"IMCO reckons. Exports of other drugs, from cocaine to methamphetamine, would become less competitive,"

Less competitive? Let's say the Cartels are all selling 3 main drugs: cocaine, MJ, and meth. MJ goes away. cocaine and meth are now more competitive than ever.

For being called "the economist", the sure don't understand how business works...

<comment><USER24> Historically speaking, there's not strong evidence of this. Despite bootleggers' existing alcohol production and distribution infrastructure at the end of prohibition in the US, they didn't end up as major players in the liquor market after prohibition was repealed, and it's pretty easy to see why: no sane consumer would choose to buy a product from a gangster in an alley when they could just as easily buy from a reputable liquor store down the street. This was all magnified by the fact that government regulation and corporate oversight ensured safer and higher-quality products at lower prices.

There's no reason to think the same thing wouldn't happen with pot: if you could buy it at the pharmacy, why would you go through a dealer? _Maybe_ if there were huge discrepancies in cost because of high taxes, there might be an opportunity at the margins for some arbitrage, the same way there is for cigarette smuggling in Europe, but I'm skeptical, especially because most of the cost, today, of buying pot isn't paying for direct production costs (materials, fertilizer, electricity, etc.), but rather compensating the various players involved for the risk they assume in producing and distributing the product. This all goes away with legalization.</comment></comment>